Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00360
Original file (ND01-00360.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
 DISCHARGE REVIEW
DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

ex-HR, USNR
Docket No. ND01-00360

Applicant’s Request
The application for discharge review, received 010202, requested that the characterization of service on the discharge be changed to honorable or general/under honorable conditions. The applicant requested a documentary record discharge review. The applicant listed the American Legion as the representative on the DD Form 293.

Decision

A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010615. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. The Board’s vote was unanimous that the character of the discharge shall not change. The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605).

PART I - APPLICANT’S ISSUES AND DOCUMENTATION

Issues (verbatim)

1. I respectfully request to have my discharge upgraded to a general discharge. I believe the record to be in unjust due to the following items; I received 4 months in the brig force writing checks that did not clear. I had already paid off the drafts and none of the companies pressed any charges against me, but my command (Naval Hospital Great Lakes) took it upon themselves to press charges. I know there's no excuse for my actions, but I took it upon myself to correct my mistakes without being told to by my command. I was charged with larceny, but I never in my life stole anything. Sir or Mam you can look into my service record and see I've never got in trouble for anything during my enlistment. I'm enclosing a copy of my special court-martial as well as my DD149.

 2. (Equity Issue) This former member further requests that the Board include provisions of SECNAVINST 5420.174C, enclosure (1), Chapter 9, as it pertains to post-service conduct, in assessing the merits of her application.
Documentation
In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:
Statement from applicant
Copy of DD Form 214
Two pages from applicant's service record

PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE

 Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge):
         Active: None
         Inactive: USNR (DEP)     950126 - 950601  COG

 Period of Service Under Review :
Date of Enlistment: 950605               Date of Discharge: 990820

 Length of Service (years, months, days):

         Active: 04 02 16
         Inactive: None

 Age at Entry: 18                          Years Contracted: 8

 Education Level: 12                        AFQT: 50

 Highest Rate: HN

 Final Enlisted Performance Evaluation Averages (number of marks):

 Performance: NMF*        Behavior: NMF*            OTA: NMF*

 Military Decorations: None

 Unit/Campaign/Service Awards: NDSM, GCM

 Days of Unauthorized Absence: None

 Character, Narrative Reason, and Authority of Discharge (at time of issuance):

UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142 (formerly 3630605).

 Chronological Listing of Significant Service Events :

990222:  Special Court Martial
         Charge I: violation of the UCMJ, Article 121 (4 specs):
         Specification 1: Steal items of merchandise, of a total value of $215.35, the property of Jewel-Osco in June 1998.
         Specification 2: Steal United States currency and items of merchandize, of a total value of $882.83, the property of the Navy Exchange in June 1998.
         Specification 3: Steal items of merchandise, of a total value of $800.28, the property of Traffic Jamz in June 1998.
         Specification 4: Steal items of merchandise, of a total value of $143.66, the property of Pep Boys in June 1998.
         Charge II: violation of the UCMJ, Article 123a:
         Specification: Wrongfully and unlawfully make and utter, certain drafts upon the Great Lakes Credit Union in June 1998 for a total of $2042.12.
         Findings: to Charge I and II and specifications thereunder, guilty.
         Sentence: CHL for 4 months, forfeiture of $600 per month for 4 months, reduction to HR.
         CA 990318: Sentence approved and ordered executed, except for the execution of that part of the sentence extending to confinement in excess of 3 months is suspended for a period of 12 months.

990222:  Applicant to confinement.

990409:  Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.
990409:          Applicant advised of his rights and having elected not to consult with counsel certified under UCMJ Article 27B, elected to waive all rights except the right to obtain copies of the documents used to support the basis for the separation.

990503:  Applicant from confinement.
990622:  Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense. Commanding officer’s comments (verbatim): Very strongly recommend that Hospitalman Seaman Recruit (applicant), U.S. Navy, be separated from the naval service with a discharge characterization of Other Than Honorable (OTH). His offenses clearly show that he cannot and will not conform to military standards and Navy Core Values, and demonstrates a clear and flagrant disregard for authority and regulations. Seaman Recruit (applicant) is not recommended for reenlistment and has no potential for future service is any military organization.

990712:  Chief of Naval Personnel forwarded recommendation to Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).

990728:  Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved applicant's discharge.

990804:  CNMPC directed the applicant's discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense.

PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT
REGULATION/LAW

Discussion

The applicant was discharged on 990820 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A and B). The Board presumed regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs (C). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (D and E).

In response to issues 1 and 2, the Board found that relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a court-martial case, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on equitable relief. The applicant's case was considered under the pertinent standards of equity to determine if any factors in this particular case merited relief. The NDRB found the applicant’s service record devoid of any mitigating or extenuating factors sufficient to offset the seriousness of the offenses for which the discharge was awarded.

There is no law or regulation that provides for the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge based solely on the passage of time or good conduct in the civilian life subsequent to leaving the Service. However, the Board is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge (E). Those factors include, but are not limited to, the following: evidence of continuing educational pursuits (transcripts, diplomas, degrees, vocational-technical certificates), a verifiable employment record (Letter of Recommendation from boss), documentation of community service (letter from the activity/community group) and certification of non-involvement with civil authorities (police records check) in order for consideration for clemency based on post-service conduct. At this time, the applicant has not provided any documentation of good character and conduct. Therefore no relief will be granted. The applicant is encouraged to continue with his pursuits and is reminded that he is eligible for a personal appearance hearing provided the application is received within 15-years from the date of discharge.

Pertinent Regulation/Law (at time of discharge)

 A. Naval Military Personnel Manual, (NAVPERS 15560C), Change 18, effective
12 Dec 97 until 29 March 2000, Article 1910-142 [formerly 3630605]. SEPARATION BY REASON OF MISCONDUCT- COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS OFFENSE .

B. In Appendix 12 of the Manual for Courts-Martial, a punitive discharge is authorized for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 121, for larceny, if adjudged at a Special or General Court Martial.

C. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 2, AUTHORITY/POLICY FOR DEPARTMENTAL DISCHARGE REVIEW.

D. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.2, PROPRIETY OF THE DISCHARGE.

E. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174C of 22 August 1984 (Manual for Discharge Review, 1984), enclosure (1), Chapter 9, paragraph 9.3, EQUITY OF THE DISCHARGE.

PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT
If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Directive 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Directive. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Directive before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Directive 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at " afls10.jag.af.mil ".

The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

                  Naval Council of Personnel Boards
                  Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
                  720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
                  Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023      


Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | DRB | 2000_Navy | ND00-00151

    Original file (ND00-00151.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980824 under Other Than Honorable conditions for misconduct due to Commission of a serious offense (A and B). The applicant was not identified as a drug abuser, while serving in the Navy, therefore, the Navy is not responsible for providing rehabilitation treatment. PART IV - INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT If you believe that the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00440

    Original file (ND02-00440.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The discharge shall remain: UNDER OTHER THAN HONORABLE CONDITIONS/MISCONDUCT, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910 - 142 (formerly 3630605). After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).Issue 1: The Applicant believes his other than honorable discharge was very severe punishment and he would like an upgrade to his discharge so he can continue his Navy career...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00060

    Original file (ND01-00060.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 010808. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, NDRB discerned no impropriety or inequity in the characterization of the applicant’s service. Appeal denied 980819.980826: Applicant notified of intended recommendation for discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00856

    Original file (ND02-00856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I was led to believe this by a representative of the United States Military. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Letter from L_ M_, undated Letter from Applicant, unsigned and undatedLetter from a Member of Congress, dated June 19, 2000Letter to Member, U.S. House of Representatives from National Personnel Records Center, dated June 9, 2000 Statement from Applicant, undated PART II - SUMMARY OF...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2002_Navy | ND02-00090

    Original file (ND02-00090.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    With this discharge there in nothing I can do for them or myself. 010123: Commanding officer recommended discharge under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to pattern of misconduct as evidenced by NJP held on 000725 and a foreign civil conviction of 001205 during current enlistment, misconduct due to commission of a serious offense as evidenced by NJP held on 000725 for violation of the UCMJ, Article 121, larceny of two debit check cards and wrongfully obtaining...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01398

    Original file (ND03-01398.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Applicant requests the characterization of service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable, general/under honorable conditions, entry level separation and uncharacterized. “My name is J_ M. R_ (Applicant). ]990517: DD Form 214: Applicant discharged under other than honorable conditions by reason of misconduct due to the commission of a serious offense, authority: NAVMILPERSMAN, Article 1910-142.

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-01054

    Original file (ND01-01054.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the applicant, was considered:Thirty-three pages from applicant's service record Copy of DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Active: USN 910717 - 941011 HON USN 941012 - 980226 HON Inactive: USNR (DEP) 901123 - 910716 COG Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 980227 Date of Discharge: 000721 Length of Service...

  • NAVY | DRB | 2003_Navy | ND03-01205

    Original file (ND03-01205.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 970109 - 970406 COG Active: None Period of Service Under Review :Date of Enlistment: 970407 Date of Discharge: 990512 Length of Service (years, months, days):Active: 02 01 06 Inactive: None Award: Not found in service record....

  • NAVY | DRB | 2001_Navy | ND01-00710

    Original file (ND01-00710.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Decision A documentary discharge review was conducted in Washington, D.C. on 011127. After a thorough review of the records, supporting documents, facts, and circumstances unique to this case, the Board found that the discharge was proper and equitable (C and D).The applicant’s issue states: “My discharge was improper because I honestly am not a thief and I believe that if I was given another chance I would have better represented myself. The applicant did not provide any documentation to...

  • NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00412

    Original file (ND99-00412.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    MMFN (applicant) has no potential for further service. PART III – RATIONALE FOR DECISION AND PERTINENT REGULATION/LAW Discussion The applicant was discharged on 980423 under other than honorable conditions for misconduct due to commission of a serious offense (A). Although the Board respects and appreciates the applicant’s over four years of service, the seriousness of the above offense is such that the Board found the characterization of the applicant’s discharge as Other Than Honorable...